[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[CW Lists]

Good afternoon:

I think Martin and Elise are right about this.

regards

CW

PS:		BTW, what was the ICANN/GNSO response to:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al-13dec11-en.pdf

	-	?


On 27 May 2015, at 15:54, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> I think Milton is right on this.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:44 AM
> To: 'Martin Boyle'; 'avri at acm.org'; 'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> By all means let's defer this to a discussion post implementation, but 
>> I think it would be for the GAC to chose how soon after transition 
>> (resources and prioritisation are for them) it would wish to carry 
>> this out.
> 
> I don't understand why this is a matter for GAC discretion rather than CWG decision. Please explain.
> 
>> 2. We seem to be arguing that ICANN should not run a TLD, although the 
>> bylaws do not actually appear to apply in this case (no anti- 
>> competitive element).
> 
> Your assumption that there is no competitive element is arguable. .INT is a gTLD that fits into the mold of a sponsored gTLD and might be considered a resource by any number of potential registries or cooperative set of registrants. There is no reason for IANA to be running it, especially post-transition. 
> 
>> As policy makers for gTLDs, should ICANN have a role in running one of 
>> the "regulated" entities?  I'm not sure that really applies here - it 
>> is one of the reasons for PTI to separate the IANA operational element 
>> from the policy side.
> 
> Any entity that runs a TLD is by definition a policy maker for the community that uses the TLD. Let's have IANA stick to its knitting. 
> 
> Martin, while you are coming up with somewhat plausible rationalizations for not doing anything, you are not providing any positive reasons why we SHOULD leave things as they are. Is there some stronger reason you are not telling us about why you are resisting this? 
> 
> --MM
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship